commander," then incipient royalty in Mexico had advanced at
least one stage beyond the head war-chief of the Iroquois, and remained
one stage behind the _basileus_ of the Homeric Greeks.

[Footnote 123: They can be most conveniently stated in
connection with the story of the conquest of Mexico; see below,
vol. ii. p. 278. When Mr. Bandelier completes his long-promised
paper on the ancient Mexican religion, perhaps it will appear
that he has taken these facts into the account.]

[Sidenote: Mode of succession to the office.]

The _tlacatecuhtli_, or "chief-of-men," was elected by an assembly
consisting of the tribal council, the "elder brothers" of the several
clans, and certain leading priests. Though the office was thus elective,
the choice seems to have been practically limited to a particular clan,
and in the eleven chiefs who were chosen from 1375 to 1520 a certain
principle or custom of succession seems to be plainly indicated.[124]
There was a further limit to the order of succession. Allusion has been
made to the four phratry-captains commanding the quarters of the city.
Their cheerful titles were "man of the house of darts," "cutter of men,"
"bloodshedder," and "chief of the eagle and cactus." These captains were
military chiefs of the phratries, and also magistrates charged with the
duty of maintaining order and enforcing the decrees of the council in
their respective quarters. The "chief of the eagle and cactus" was chief
executioner,--Jack Ketch. He was not eligible for the office of
"chief-of-men;" the three other phratry-captains were eligible. Then
there was a member of the priesthood entitled "man of the dark house."
This person, with the three eligible captains, made a quartette, and one
of this privileged four _must_ succeed to the office of "chief-of-men."

[Footnote 124: I cannot follow Mr. Bandelier in discrediting
Clavigero's statement that the office of _tlacatecuhtli_
"should always remain in the house of Acamapitzin," inasmuch as
the eleven who were actually elected were all closely akin to
one another. In point of fact it _did_ remain "in the house of
Acamapitzin."]

The eligibility of the "man of the dark house" may be cited here as
positive proof that sometimes the "chief-of-men" could be a
"priest-commander." That in all cases he acquired priestly functions
after election, even when he did n